OCinBuffalo

Yes....I have encountered many people whose entire existence seems to be about interfering. Not sure if Big Brother is to blame, but somebody is. As I said above...they don't get how stupid this is politically. The lulz on this haven't even begun yet. But, I am sure NewBills/BF2/DiN will come around and tell us that it isn't stupid, and that in fact Julia means they will not only win the Presidency, but the House and Senate as well. Obama poo Yes, Julia will be raised on it. Open wide Julia....here comes the Obama poo airplane...

This and this. The Bills are a class organization. They won't make a guy go through camp when they think they are going to cut him. That's not fair. Let him sign on elsewhere and go through their camp. It's better for him to release him now. As I said in the Gilmore? thread. If it came down to Florence or McGee, it had to be Florence.

Depends on who is setting the metrics, how, and for whom they are setting the metrics. By all rights, YOU, and your organization, should be setting the metrics for yourself. For example, in another industry, I would never walk into a client meeting and say "well, the rest of the industry is doing it this way, so you have to as well, and we'll measure your performance against that". Not only would the client, rightly, toss me out on my ass, it's simply wrong. So why is this OK for health care? The fact is that quality comes from the organization's internal commitment to it, not some external clown that shows up. Surprise! If we want to measure anything, the first thing we should measure is the commitment to quality. And, that's easy: tell me how many patients are in this facility and who is doing what for them right now. It's simple inquiry, but the average health care outfit does not have that answer. They don't because nobody is looking at this properly. It's by no means the only question, but it is the first one. If we aren't about being able to answer that question, every day, all the time, because we NEED to know the answer, and only want to answer it because the state is here today, then we aren't serious about quality. If the state persists in its quest to determine whether a piece of paper/software form was filled out, instead of getting the answer to Question #1, then they aren't serious about quality either.

Then actually, you agree with a lot more of us than you think. I think it's safe to say that most of us view taxes and spending as they variables they are, and tools to help the economy, rather than the constants that extremists on both sides wish they were, and tools to punish people. My personal view is that the tax rate should be adjusted quarterly, but more importantly, predictably. Being able to reliably predict that ahead of time would probably add .5% growth to the economy all by itself. I think ALL spending should have a mandatory timeout, and should be graded for effectiveness. If it can't be quantified, it goes away. Now, look, I have a buddy who is a state-employed AIDS counselor. We can talk about efficiency all day, but I don't know how we make him more efficient at telling people they have AIDS. There is spending that will be inefficient like that, and there's not much we can do about it. However, he will tell you that there's no way they can do the work that the state laws have mandated that they do. Not enough people, but really, the jobs they are being asked to do is nearly impossible. You can't start living somebody's life for them because they have aids, and the legislature says you need to. That is my problem with government-->scope. They simply cannot deliver on what they promise, because they promise irrational, overblown, poorly understood, "one size fits all" solutions that fit no one. Spend whatever you want, but f'ing deliver the goods. Don't tell me that I should be happy when you fail. Don't tell me that failing = being "compassionate and moral" because it is neither.

Patronizing? I just don't find it funny, that's all. Given your sense of humor, I don't see why it's that funny for you. Certainly not a big deal. And, certainly it's not specific to you, or because of you....narcissist! Besides, there's plenty of things to bust on you about. Don't need the easy stuff. And, that's the other part I don't get. Why do you want to give an easy escape route to the usual turds? Look, they NEED the unfunny easy stuff, why give it to them? Dude, you know that I would never stand in the way of anyone having a sense of humor...on anything. Hell, half my posts are predicated on trying to get...certain posters....to stop taking themselves so seriously. Yeah, i know, intentional irony, as the other half are trying to get you all to take me seriously. I just don't think meds are that funny. Maybe it's just me.

The key word is quality. Nothing, NOTHING in the business processes of health care organizations I have encountered addresses quality PROPERLY. The only thing that does is: the people, doing it by hand, rote, default, verbally, etc., while being forced to fill out pointless form after pointless form, paper or software, which in fact impede quality concepts, rather than attend to them. If people are the only chance of doing quality right, then people are also the most likely reason it will be done wrong. This is intolerable to anybody who knows anything about quality assurance, and is also why the entire malpractice menagerie of BS exists. Look, any clown can just make up a 1-5 status, not base it on anything remotely quantifiable, pretend it exists in a vacuum, call it a "quality assurance standard". Not even. That's not even close to how this works. The good news is: quality can be done, and it can be done properly. Most importantly it can be done properly for health care, in that it is possible to adjust proper QA practices to fit the realities of health care. However, F'ing about with care plans, etc. is not the answer. Most of this junk is unrepairable, has horrible design flaws, and therefore needs to go. Btw, after we do quality, can we start on cost? I don't care which one we do first, but if we do quality, managing cost is the next project. That's because: you can't do health care exchanges properly if you don't know quality or cost, either. If we are serious about exchanges, vouchers, etc., then we better be serious about quality and cost. Otherwise, we are better off doing nothing. As I've said 100 times, I should be for Obamacare, because it plays right into my hands professionally. But, I'm not, because stupid is stupid, and "meaningful use", as a standard, is the stupidest thing I have heard since I was in public utilities.

I wear my nerd badge with honor. It's right next to my jock, deadhead, and preppy/mod badges. Yet, I don't see how being aware of a Highlander reference makes you, especially as a girl, any less of a nerd than I. So there.

Yes, but there can be only one. I think we all know whose fault that is...and who the one will end up being.

So, yeah, you missed it to, huh? And you are still missing it? It's not a sentence in a comment, clown, look at the middle of the page. Click the damn link in my last post. Pathetic. It's not like I directly quoted it to begin with or anything Your piss poor observation/reading comprehension skills, mean I am....what now? Who's being incoherent? The fact that you missed it is not surprising. The fact that you dragged DC_Tom down with you is...hysterical. Now, why don't you go home, and tell your wife that you intend on using her body, and have her put you out of our misery.

And the fun part is....they don't get that, or why. They don't see that they are doing to themselves. What about Julia the crackwhore who has never had a sense of personal accomplishment, or self worth, because it wasn't issued to her by the government? Or is it more accurately: Julia the GI? with everything being issued to her by the government? A good little soldier, she does as she is ordered by the government bureaucrat, who, armed with their master degree in women's studies, must know better than Julia what is good for her. After all Julia is a woman, right?

Yes, you missed it, didn't you. All I did above was restate what I have been saying...but NOW it's coherent? I don't joke about medications for the mentally ill. You sure you want to be doing that?

For me its the exact opposite. I have put myself in their shoes, completely. Therefore, I know how to make fun of them, completely. Look, there's right and wrong sometimes, but more often, there's what works and what doesn't. Obama had complete control of government, and instead of fixing the economy and doing the right things right, he chose Obamacare and doing the wrong things....and not leading on any of it. That didn't work, period. If he is as smart as they say, he should have known better. The reason he did it was to appease the loons, period. Now, who is more loony? The loon, or the guy who self-destructs by listening to the loon? There's nothing loony about caring what happens to the poor, disabled, young or elderly person who needs help. However, there is something loony about demanding that we keep failing at it.

This, you unmitigated moron. Are you telling me you didn't see this poster, in the middle of the page, in the link in the OP = right here. And I quote: "Fine. If the Republicans refuse to let women use birth control, then women will stop allowing men to use our bodies. Deal?" Now, aside from the irrationality and lying it takes to construct the first part of this....what about the "daddy issues" or "I am a brutal slut issues" it takes to create the second? If your concept of intimacy is: "I allow somebody to use my body" then birth control is distant 2nd on your list of problems. But, it is 2nd, and I want it to be 2nd, because I don't want society to have to deal with the kids that come from somebody who thinks like this. Never mind sex strikes, the woman/women that wrote this poster, and those that have no problem with it, need intensive psychotherapy. But I don't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the supposed men they are supposedly denying use of their bodies.

Yeah, that's it. You and your butt buddy are just pissed that I used you to make my point. Sensitive? Ok, next time I'll use Chef Jim and...somebody else who is married. Or better, , let's make a deal: you go home tonight and tell your wife that you intend on "using her body", , and, after the beating she gives you, come back here and we'll see how "coherent" you are. Come on, do it, do it, do it. What's wrong, you're a big strong guy, right? Then do it! Why not? You're coherent, right? The fact that it takes an addled brain to write a poster like this is undeniable. The fact that you are trying to ignore/deny it? Well, what is your explanation for that exactly?

No, but I assure you, you are.

Isn't this hysterical? It's amazing how many people aren't willing to stand up for their guy, now that they know he's going to lose. This dude was probably running around with his Obama t-shirt on 4 years ago, screaming Yes We Can!....but, now he's a "moderate" Then, of course we have the Pasta Joe's, saying it should have been Hillary, but not that their ideas are F'ed. But, yeah, it's the Republicans that have the discipline/voter coalition/motivated base problems? I might feel bad for these people, honestly, if it wasn't for all the hubris and phony moral superiority we have had to endure from them. I don't feel bad at all. They are about to get run over by history, and reality, and that's a good thing. I don't expect many of them to learn from this, but a few will.

Haha, I refer you to 2010.....yeah, that was hysterical for you, wasn't it? A complete repudiation of your party is always a barrel of laughs isn't it? Are you a masochist? But....perhaps that's the wrong way to look at it. Perhaps, your standard of "house in order" is too high? Or perhaps it isn't. See, Republicans, and especially the libertarian flavor, are independent thinkers. So, there's always going to be some arguing and even some flat out fighting in the Republican party. Liberals like you are drones looking for a queen. Or, budding fascists looking for a supreme leader. That means there's likely to be no thinking, and yeah, there's likely to be less fighting. The trouble for you is: Obama ain't the leader you are looking for, and you know it. Deep down in your brain is that place you hate to visit, the one where reason still lives, barely, you know I am right. And that, right there, is single funniest thing in this entire thread. The only thing funnier is the pathetic attempt to deny it. IF the left is more "in order" than the right, please explain Obama's budgets since the stimulus getting 0 votes. This should be good. Where's the discipline when we have elected Democrats coming out and saying Obamacare was a bad plan? This should be hysterical. But by all means, keep laughing....because it makes me laugh even harder. Keep moving those pieces around on the map in your bunker, and laughing at how much trouble "they" are in.

You don't know? Well, I suppose that's not much of a surprise. There's a button at the bottom when you are posting, it says "Review complete topic". You should have clicked that before you posted this. I'll make it even easier: click on the link in the OP. Then, focus on the MIDDLE OF THE PAGE There's a poster that was put forward by this silly campaign there. Yeah, it's real tough to miss, idiot. Are you really this stupid? I mean...it's not like I didn't quote it...directly. And, it's not like we don't have a myriad of examples of liberals playing the "I'm just kidding, I am a comedian" card when they get caught saying something dumb. So, in your post above, are you "just kidding"?

Liberals are fighting the last war. It's like charging cavalry against tanks. They don't understand that the evangelicals that were for big government, especially when it came to subsidies, have been marginalized by the libertarians and the TEA party. This is evidenced by it being Romney, and not Santorum. Put simply: they aren't arguing against the same old people or ideas. However, they are too lazy to figure that out. This is why the TEA party has been so effective, and also why OWS has not. As an example: So yeah, basically there's not a single characterization there that is accurate. And, again, these characterizations, and arguing against them, is precisely why liberals are losing across the board. You'd think people who like to say straw man so much....would be more careful of them. Right here, exposing the vinegary doucheyness of douches like you....specifically in #3 above.

To you maybe, but, as is evident by your post, you don't matter, as you are voting for Obama regardless. Now, on to the people that do matter: the independents in 16 states. Yeah, the ones who are going to decide the election. To those people, "even carter would have given that order" is a soundbite that they won't forget. Again, smart politics by Romney, and dumb politics by Obama. People running around saying this is bad for Romney = more delusional wishful thinking. This is proven by: where is this story today? Another Obama meme Fail. Junior Seau is a much bigger story. But who knows? Perhaps "Forward" will work? Uhh...but what happens when the fact that Marx and Engles worked at "Forward" comes to light? Too easy, because they are too stupid, and completely ignorant of history. Maybe they will bring back WTF? Oh, I mean Winning The Future...sorry. I don't know about that though, because I don't think they can get any more convicted felons to stand next to the President for the photo op that rolls it out again. The convicts don't want to ruin their image. Wishful thinking. How does responding with a withering one liner imply insecurity? Yeah, yeah, Butters...."boy oh boy Obama's gonna get em in October!" isn't he? Historically, the undecideds don't go for the incumbent, unless your name is George W Bush....which means Obama is currently losing by double digits. This is only May, and anything can happen. But let's spare ourselves the delusion that Romney, who just, purposefully, went through a blistering primary and has emerged tied with Obama in spite of it, needs thicker skin.

Yeah...he's just not as "enlightened" as you are. The problem is we just need to be more open minded to things like this. It's simply a matter of taking the time to understand the other person, having enough respect to see things from their eyes. If only he could see sticking his entire hand in there, then he would be able to see the value of fisting, and its cultural importance, and all our troubles are over, dude, right? Yeah, this makes sense....since the Republicans nominated Romney, instead of Santorum....and the Democrats nominated Obama, instead of Hillary. Hint: there are no more moderates left in the elected Democratic party, as they were all voted out of office in 2010. The extreme left, and the Presidential candidate they demanded, saw to that in 2010. So...since we are talking about things that kill, exactly whom was killed by what, again? I am sorry, but the facts don't support your...theory...or wanton wishful thinking, either describes it accurately. Got any more pearls of wisdom? The Republicans have their camp in order: see 2010. You don't pull off an ass whipping of that proportion without discipline. Case in point: the only places where they lost, Delaware and Nevada, are also where there wasn't any discipline. Discipline: a word that Democrats have been unaware of since 2005. In 2005, when Carville and Begalla first created the message that was co-opted by Axelrod, there was discipline for Democrats, but only because they had lost so badly twice in a row. The discipline of "ok we'll shut off our extremist nonsense so we can finally win something" is discipline, but only fleeting. As soon as they got power in 2006, the Democrat discipline ended and the extremist nonsense, and more importantly, the over-reach, began.

Joke, not a joke...who cares? These weaklings and their "I'm just kidding, so now that you're about to squish me, don't, please" crap is so old it's boring. They aren't smart enough to troll. The best they can do is impersonate, and that has run it's course as well. ------------------------------ Now, he's something that isn't funny(well, to some. To me it's hysterically ironic): See that poster that ends with "stop allowing men to use our bodies"? Uh....WTF? How many of you married posters would describe your activity with your spouse as "using their body"? Better, what would happen to you if said spouse heard said words? I can just see DC_Tom getting his mouth washed out with soap, with his wife on the phone telling JA's wife where he heard these dirty words, and then JA crying in the background as he takes his beating as well. Meanwhile, 3rdnlng is sitting in his house with a schit eating grin for starting the thread. Is this what sex, or, intimacy , is to liberals? Is this what it is to feminists? If so, it's no small wonder why I have found right leaning women to be a lot better at it. "Allllright, I will lay here and let you use my body for a while " Yeah, that's attractive. Or, is it that since liberals tend to be less attractive, they are more likely to have their bodies used? Certainly we can't project this on all liberals, etc. But, where's the OUTRAGETM? Or at least, where is the editor? IF this goes against what they think as a group, then why is it still being bandied about? There's a deep set psychological problem with anybody who writes that poster, and espouses it's words. Words have meaning. IF these words are misplaced, then why have they been allowed to stand?

Look at this way: who is the closest thing to Frank Riech out there. That's who we want on the team. Trent Edwards is not Frank Riech, and neither is Thigpen. People forget, but it wasn't always smurfs and flowers with Jim Kelly. Plenty of people wanted to start Frank Riech(not saying it was rational ), just to defend against Kelly throwing a big pick that would cost us the game. I prefer to look at this as: as a fan base, we are still adjusting to all of this. This off-season is like overload, compared to the last 8 off-seasons. Nobody knows how to react. Thankfully we will have all summer to process what has happened to this team, and iron out our thinking.

The way this has played out so far, this has the potential to be the biggest non-issue contract extension in the modern history of pro sports.

VY is a backup. We need a better backup than Thigpen. Would any of you be happier if they did....nothing....this off-season regarding the backup QB situation? How many years of doing nothing have we endured? Now, we are doing something that not only addresses a problem, it can actually end up being a good idea. Low risk, high reward. WTF is wrong with that? Chixley has friggin addressed every single area on this team people have bitched about. Now people are bitching because they are doing what they wanted? Come on, man. The only consistent B word people have had, that hasn't been addressed, is replacing Fitz with.....? Exactly. ? is the answer to replacing Fitz, but we HAVE to go with ?, immediately. WTF? Corp may end up on the PS, and there is your long term project that may end up succeeding Fitz. Young is an upgrade with 31 NFL wins. At this point, given the "body of work" of the Bills FO this off-season, IF YOU ARE BITCHING, YOU ARE WRONG. Trent Edwards is a fit for the Eagles offense. Actually he is a very good fit for that O. Young is much better in what Gailey, I THINK, is trying to do. We'll see this preseason.